Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChelseaFCCC)
    Okay, think what you just said. You basically said, any country that has a few nukes can defeat Russia, USA, China etc? Imagine ermm.... for example...South Korea they have nuclear weapons (from USA), does that mean, SK can defeat USA, Russia, China, etc?
    If they had sufficient nuclear weapons to strike valuable and strategic targets then yes, but it is highly unlikely.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChelseaFCCC)
    Without a doubt, USA and Russia are the most powerful countries on the planet, and we would never want to seem them go into a war against each other, never.

    -Both of these countries own around 90% of the worlds nuclear weapons, with Russia having about 10k (52%) and USA about 8k. Not sure if these statistics are correct or not tho, (just read about it)

    - Both of these countries can blow up the planet over 300 times.. (roughly)

    - USA have modern technology, and are more developed with potentially more troops

    - Russia are more experienced when it comes to wars. (everyone is disagreeing with this. Soviet Union contained most of the Russians, who were involved in WW2 and in Afghanistan)

    Without allies, or any nuclear weapons (of course) who would win?
    USA,
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the mezzil)
    If they had sufficient nuclear weapons to strike valuable and strategic targets then yes, but it is highly unlikely.
    Fair enough, so Russia can defeat USA too?

    And France with Britain at the same time?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChelseaFCCC)
    Fair enough, so Russia can defeat USA too?

    And France with Britain at the same time?
    It is possible that Russia would defeat the USA, but unlikely. Likewise for Britain and France V Russia, Russia again likely losing. If it was NATO v Russia, then it is almost certain that Russia would lose (not definate though, just probable)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the mezzil)
    It is possible that Russia would defeat the USA, but unlikely. Likewise for Britain and France V Russia, Russia again likely losing. If it was NATO v Russia, then it is almost certain that Russia would lose (not definate though, just probable)
    I cannot imagine Britain and France defeating Russia when Britain are still fighting the taliban.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChelseaFCCC)
    I cannot imagine Britain and France defeating Russia when Britain are still fighting the taliban.
    We'll be away soon. Anyway, Afghanistan would be a good staging point for a land invasion from the south since it's only a hop and a skip away which could secure the southern oil fields in Russia. You'd only have to get permission from Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan to use their roads and you are in Russia. Plus the fact that we could use the airports in Afghanistan for military strikes on southern industrial complexes doesn't make Afghanstan too bad of a staging point.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by ChelseaFCCC)
    I cannot imagine Britain and France defeating Russia when Britain are still fighting the taliban.
    Are you serious?

    Asymmetric warfare and gurillia campaigns are the hardest to defeat. The most powerful military machines in the history of human kind have failed in the face of what seems like a few peasants armed with the most basic weapons. Britain the USSR, the USA have all failed in Afghanistan on separate occasions. It's no indication of how they would perform in a state on state direct confrontation though.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChelseaFCCC)
    Without a doubt, USA and Russia are the most powerful countries on the planet, and we would never want to seem them go into a war against each other, never.

    -Both of these countries own around 90% of the worlds nuclear weapons, with Russia having about 10k (52%) and USA about 8k. Not sure if these statistics are correct or not tho, (just read about it)

    - Both of these countries can blow up the planet over 300 times.. (roughly)

    - USA have modern technology, and are more developed with potentially more troops

    - Russia are more experienced when it comes to wars. (everyone is disagreeing with this. Soviet Union contained most of the Russians, who were involved in WW2 and in Afghanistan)

    Without allies, or any nuclear weapons (of course) who would win?
    USA, no doubts about it. Russia's nuclear weaponry is the sole thing on which it relies upon to deter any potential hostile factions from attacking it.

    You're talking about the wrong kind of experiences. Every major conflict during the last 100-150 years was a disaster for Russia, Crimean War, Russo-Japanese War, WWI, WWII (the widely praised Zhukov's preferred tactic was zerg rush, which resulted in insane military casualties among soviet troops, do enlighten yourself if you never heard about that), Afghanistan (10 years of utter and purposeless disaster and bloodshed, thousands of lives lost for nothing), the Chechen Wars (the absolutely idiotic assault on Grozny which resulted in thousands of needless casualties included).

    Plus Russia has almost 0 presence outside the CIS, plus it is clearly inferior in terms of technology and combat training, most of its army and 100% of its reservists are incapable of fighting anyone, which was illustrated quite vividly during Afghanistan and Chechnya.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The US spends more on its military then the entire other top 10 countries COMBINED, they control the skys with there satellites, they have bases in nearly every country in the world. The US would win far easier against a real military then in Afghanistan due t... wait you cannot explain why Vietnam and Iraq are so different from say WW1/2 in a hundred posts. Do some research people who go on about the US losing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by So Instinct)
    Could beat that with a bit of wildfire.
    Maybe, probably not 13 battle groups though
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    It's not really a contest; the Russian Navy has minimal operational capability and even the newest ships are getting on for 25-30 years old. The Russian airforce has some impressive types - but available in only tiny numbers. The US has more F22 alone than Russia has all of post-cold war aircraft types. Its army is much smaller and again is swimming in obsolete equipment with upgrades being far less numerous.

    Russia does have an arms industry that is disproportionately large and developed relative to the size and importance of the country. Partly that's because so much money was invested into it by the Soviets, and partly because it wasn't run as incompetently as other Soviet industries. But I'd compare Russia more to Britain in the late 1940s and 1950s. It has a technological edge in some areas, but no money to exploit it, and over time capabilities are only going to degrade. Its days as a great power are passed, and it is fading from the scene. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if Russia tried to follow Turkey into the EU some time around 2030 or 2040, when they realise China utterly dwarfs them and is going to treat them more like a vassal than a partner when that is the case.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Observatory)
    No money to exploit it.

    I wouldn't be entirely surprised if Russia tried to follow Turkey into the EU some time around 2030 or 2040, when they realise China utterly dwarfs them and is going to treat them more like a vassal than a partner when that is the case.
    They have the money, it is just poorly managed and many people take a lot of it for themselves.

    :rofl: that wil never happen, to think that it will shows a distinct lack of knowledge in Russian history and current affairs. While there is a push to make visa free travel easier, greater trading co-operation etc, Russia joining the EU as a junior partner would never happen not when they are basically the leaders of CIS and other organisations in Asia and the Middle East.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    They have the money, it is just poorly managed and many people take a lot of it for themselves.

    :rofl: that wil never happen, to think that it will shows a distinct lack of knowledge in Russian history and current affairs. While there is a push to make visa free travel easier, greater trading co-operation etc, Russia joining the EU as a junior partner would never happen not when they are basically the leaders of CIS and other organisations in Asia and the Middle East.
    Russia wouldn't be a junior partner in the EU if it was actually willing to join though. Not a chance with Putin in charge, we will see what happens in the future.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    They have the money, it is just poorly managed and many people take a lot of it for themselves.
    Russia's GDP is 1/4 that of PRC and 1/5 that of USA. They have a lack of money and it is poorly managed; though just with respect to military investments the militarist nationalism of their government probably outweighs its corruption and inefficiency as compared to western governments.

    :rofl: that wil never happen, to think that it will shows a distinct lack of knowledge in Russian history and current affairs. While there is a push to make visa free travel easier, greater trading co-operation etc, Russia joining the EU as a junior partner would never happen not when they are basically the leaders of CIS and other organisations in Asia and the Middle East.
    In 1930, when they were world powers, it would seem equally ridiculous Germany, France or Britain would degrade their sovereignty in that way. When they came to realise they were weak second rate powers on their own they changed their minds. Fundamentally Russia is a weak, second rate power coasting on the legacy of the Soviet arms industry and the temporary weakness of the PRC and India. By 2030 Russia won't be a world power.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dr00n)
    literally Google 'the 10 military powers' and every single one of them I guarantee will feature India in the top 10 and most probably the top 5, and Pakistan nowhere to be seen
    I've seen those lists, I view them as relatively inaccurate. If you look yourself Pakistan consistently appears in the top 10 or 15 on those lists as well.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    I've seen those lists, I view them as relatively inaccurate. If you look yourself Pakistan consistently appears in the top 10 or 15 on those lists as well.
    While Pakistan's ownership of nuclear weapons means it can never be really defeated by India, it's absurd to suggest they're comparably powerful. India's economy is nearly 8x as large as Pakistan's in total and nearly twice as large per capita. Its economy is also growing twice as fast. In 2030 or 2040, Pakistan will be like Serbia or Portugal relative to India's France or Germany.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    While Pakistan's ownership of nuclear weapons means it can never be really defeated by India, it's absurd to suggest they're comparably powerful. India's economy is nearly 8x as large as Pakistan's in total and nearly twice as large per capita. Its economy is also growing twice as fast. In 2030 or 2040, Pakistan will be like Serbia or Portugal relative to India's France or Germany.
    I agree. I was merely refuting the suggestion that Indian military prowess matches that of countries such as Russia and the UK. At the moment it is nowhere near.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    I agree. I was merely refuting the suggestion that Indian military prowess matches that of countries such as Russia and the UK. At the moment it is nowhere near.
    Well you weren't agreeing to that earlier. And why is it absurd that the Indian military couldn't match ours? Genuinely I don't know but everywhere i've looked (a lot of googling top 10 military powers) suggests that India would come out the better of the two.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    While Pakistan's ownership of nuclear weapons means it can never be really defeated by India, it's absurd to suggest they're comparably powerful. India's economy is nearly 8x as large as Pakistan's in total and nearly twice as large per capita. Its economy is also growing twice as fast. In 2030 or 2040, Pakistan will be like Serbia or Portugal relative to India's France or Germany.
    I don't disagree with you entirely (see my post from before on this topic) - but you're assuming India's economy will continue to grow at a rapid rate, continuously, unabated.

    That's what people thought about our economy not so long ago (and they turned out to be completely wrong). The fact of the matter is that nobody knows where an economy like India will be in 20-30 years time. I already mentioned about how India has very recently climbed the "top 10" ranking rapidly, due mostly to its massive military spending in the last few years. In any case, a lot of those lists are inaccurate and are based solely around publicly provided/partial numbers and they never really give the whole picture.

    Not only that, I am firmly of the view that India can't and won't continue to grow at such a rate. Its importance, power and influence is hugely overrated at the moment for a number of reasons. That said - people laugh at me because I doubt China's economic power and position too, although not to the same extent as India's.

    In comparison, although Pakistan is in a battered state - it really can't get much worse for them. If the conflict in and around it comes to an end, they have every chance of growing their economy at a rapid rate.

    People forget Pakistan's GDP growth exceeded that of India's all the way up until 2005 (I think) where it was overtaken - after 4 years of being involved in heavy conflict and security issues on two of its 4 neighbouring borders.

    Both, India's socio-economic problems and the infrastructure difficulties it faces are often overlooked.

    I know this makes it sound one-sided, but I'm merely pointing out what is possible at the other end of the scale.

    The factors that favour India greatly are that America appears to be switching its allegiances from Pakistan to India more openly and that will benefit them in a huge way. If India solves some of its social problems and uses the good times that it is experiencing now to put solid foundations in place, it will achieve great things as a country. Otherwise, it will remain mediocre.

    (Original post by Dr00n)
    Well you weren't agreeing to that earlier. And why is it absurd that the Indian military couldn't match ours? Genuinely I don't know but everywhere i've looked (a lot of googling top 10 military powers) suggests that India would come out the better of the two.
    As I said above and in my previous post, the numbers on paper don't mean much. India would not last long if it attacked Russia. It doesn't matter that it has spent approx $40bln on its military recently (the reason I suspect it features near to the UK/France/Russia in those lists).
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by r32)
    I don't disagree with you entirely (see my post from before on this topic) - but you're assuming India's economy will continue to grow at a rapid rate, continuously, unabated.

    That's what people thought about our economy not so long ago (and they turned out to be completely wrong). The fact of the matter is that nobody knows where an economy like India will be in 20-30 years time. I already mentioned about how India has very recently climbed the "top 10" ranking rapidly, due mostly to its massive military spending in the last few years. In any case, a lot of those lists are inaccurate and are based solely around publicly provided/partial numbers and they never really give the whole picture.

    Not only that, I am firmly of the view that India can't and won't continue to grow at such a rate. Its importance, power and influence is hugely overrated at the moment for a number of reasons. That said - people laugh at me because I doubt China's economic power and position too, although not to the same extent as India's.

    In comparison, although Pakistan is in a battered state - it really can't get much worse for them. If the conflict in and around it comes to an end, they have every chance of growing their economy at a rapid rate.

    People forget Pakistan's GDP growth exceeded that of India's all the way up until 2005 (I think) where it was overtaken - after 4 years of being involved in heavy conflict and security issues on two of its 4 neighbouring borders.

    Both, India's socio-economic problems and the infrastructure difficulties it faces are often overlooked.

    I know this makes it sound one-sided, but I'm merely pointing out what is possible at the other end of the scale.

    The factors that favour India greatly are that America appears to be switching its allegiances from Pakistan to India more openly and that will benefit them greatly. If India solves some of its social problems and uses the good times that it is experiencing now to put solid foundations in place, it will achieve great things as a county. Otherwise, it will remain a mediocre country.



    As I said above and in my previous post, the numbers on paper don't mean much. India would not last long if it attacked Russia. It doesn't matter that it has spent approx $40bln on its military recently (the reason I suspect it features near to the UK/France/Russia in those lists).
    Don't have time to debate in detail but this is an excellent post. In my personal opinion due to the various problems you mention and many others India will never be a superpower. That rank will be conferable upon only the United States and China in the 21st century.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources
    AtCTs

    Ask the Community Team

    Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

    Welcome Lounge

    Welcome Lounge

    We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.